Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of the negatives about gun control in the USA is that an innocuous, non-offensive piece of legislation is actually a "slippery slope" meaning that once, say universal background checks are in place, then another more restrictive piece of legislation will follow. One thing follows another.
So the issue is, is gun control under the Second Amendment possible?
One of the negatives about gun control in the USA is that an innocuous, non-offensive piece of legislation is actually a "slippery slope" meaning that once, say universal background checks are in place, then another more restrictive piece of legislation will follow. One thing follows another.
So the issue is, is gun control under the Second Amendment possible?
I'd estimate its somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of what the fed govt does is not authorized or permitted in its own rule book a.k.a. the constitution, so short answer, yes
Yes, the frog in the heating water thing. They've played that trick on us many times already--basically with all the social programs in place and taxation. If you suddenly plopped a man from 1890 into modern society, he would not accept paying all the BS we pay from our wages to the government. He wouldn't accept all the restrictions we think are "normal" (at least most of us do). And he certainly would not go for being disarmed as the dems are currently trying to do.
Yes, the frog in the heating water thing. They've played that trick on us many times already--basically with all the social programs in place and taxation. If you suddenly plopped a man from 1890 into modern society, he would not accept paying all the BS we pay from our wages to the government. He wouldn't accept all the restrictions we think are "normal" (at least most of us do). And he certainly would not go for being disarmed as the dems are currently trying to do.
We bare some of the blame for this imo though...basically for allowing this to go on for so long without stepping up to do something about it. The constitution and bill of rights gives us things we can do...but ultimately we still need to stand up and take the first step (thats the tough part)...majority of people are too scared of possibly being arrested and/or labelled a domestic terrorist, so they do nothing!
As sad as it is, I dont think our time period will see any patriots or heroes (ones that will be honored or celebrated for things they have done), everyone is so compliant today. lol
We bare some of the blame for this imo though...basically for allowing this to go on for so long without stepping up to do something about it. The constitution and bill of rights gives us things we can do...but ultimately we still need to stand up and take the first step (thats the tough part)...majority of people are too scared of possibly being arrested and/or labelled a domestic terrorist, so they do nothing!
As sad as it is, I dont think our time period will see any patriots or heroes (ones that will be honored or celebrated for things they have done), everyone is so compliant today. lol
Yes, absolutely. As written, our Constitution basically puts us (the populace) in control of the government, not the other way around. But, as you imply, we've allowed, over the years, for our nation to become something of a monarchy or oligarchy with a mushrooming of government elites. Sure, we vote the "kings" in, but we seem to treat them as... well, kings and royalty. And they see themselves as kings and royalty. That's not the way it was intended. That's exactly what the original framers were trying to avoid.
I often think of that quote (or supposed quote) of Franklin after the formation of the government at the Constitutional Convention (when asked what kind of government was created): A republic, if you can keep it.
One of the negatives about gun control in the USA is that an innocuous, non-offensive piece of legislation is actually a "slippery slope" meaning that once, say universal background checks are in place, then another more restrictive piece of legislation will follow. One thing follows another.
So the issue is, is gun control under the Second Amendment possible?
The fact that I can't walk into a store and purchase a full-auto machine gun, an RPG, and a bazooka--all without a license and background check--means that gun control is already in effect.
The fact that Trump made bump stocks illegal means gun control is in effect.
I'd estimate its somewhere in the neighborhood of 90% of what the fed govt does is not authorized or permitted in its own rule book a.k.a. the constitution, so short answer, yes
“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.”
― Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority
The fact that I can't walk into a store and purchase a full-auto machine gun, an RPG, and a bazooka--all without a license and background check--means that gun control is already in effect.
The fact that Trump made bump stocks illegal means gun control is in effect.
All gun laws are infringements. ALL of them.
but ironically its perfectly legal to rob you and use the proceeds to purchase said weaponry to provide for a govt employee.
Yes, the frog in the heating water thing. They've played that trick on us many times already--basically with all the social programs in place and taxation. If you suddenly plopped a man from 1890 into modern society, he would not accept paying all the BS we pay from our wages to the government. He wouldn't accept all the restrictions we think are "normal" (at least most of us do). And he certainly would not go for being disarmed as the dems are currently trying to do.
...that serfs in Russia under the CZAR were not taxed as much as we are today.
One of the negatives about gun control in the USA is that an innocuous, non-offensive piece of legislation is actually a "slippery slope" meaning that once, say universal background checks are in place, then another more restrictive piece of legislation will follow. One thing follows another.
So the issue is, is gun control under the Second Amendment possible?
Of course gun control is possible. The Second Amendment was intended to cover men who were willing to be on-call to step in with a militia for the defense of the country. That's it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My professor in college said ...
